Comparative assessment of a novel fan box trap for collecting Anopheles farauti and culicine mosquitoes alive in tropical north Queensland, Australia

During preliminary mosquito surveys at Cowley Beach Training Area in north Queensland, Australia, it was found that the utility of the standard encephalitis virus surveillance (EVS) trap for collecting the malaria vector Anopheles farauti (Laveran) adults was compromised by the harsh tropical conditions. With the aim of increasing the survival rate of mosquitoes, we designed a downdraft fan box trap (FBT) that incorporated a screened fan at the bottom of the trap, so mosquitoes did not have to pass through a fan. The FBT was tested against the EVS and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) light traps, where mosquitoes do pass through a fan, and a nonpowered passive box trap (PBT). We conducted four trials to compare the quantity and survival of An. farauti and culicine mosquitoes were collected in these traps. Although not significant, the FBT collected more An. farauti than the EVS trap and PBT and significantly less An. farauti than the CDC light trap. However, the FBT improved on the CDC..., Mosquito trapping experiments at Cowly Beach north Queensland., , # Comparative assessment of a novel fan box trap for collecting Anopheles farauti and culicine mosquitoes alive in tropical north Queensland, Australia ## Description of the data and file structure File contains an Excel spreadsheet with the raw data for the mosquito trap comparisons at the Cowley Beach Training Area (CBTA) in Queensland Australia (17° 41' 35\" S, 146° 6' 40\" E) in 2015 Data includes mosquito trap collection comparisons for anophelines and culicines. Dates and collection numbers of the trapping experiment trials are presented. Traps included the Passive Box Trap (PBT), the Fan Box Trap (FBT) and the Encephalitis Virus Surveillance trap (EVS). Mosquito collection data are provided in three Excel sheets detailed below.  Mosquito collection comparison:  1\. Sheet 1: Mosquito trap collection comparisons. Trial 1 is EVS vs PBT and Trial 2 is EVS vs FBT 2\. Sheet 2: Mosquito trap collection comparisons for FBT, EVS and CDC traps over multiple sites 3\. Sheet 3: Mosq...# 澳大利亚昆士兰州热带区域新型风扇诱捕箱对活体法氏按蚊与库蚊类的采集性能对比评估 在澳大利亚昆士兰州北部考利海滩训练区开展的前期蚊虫调查中，研究人员发现，常规脑炎病毒监测（Encephalitis Virus Surveillance, EVS）诱捕器用于采集疟疾媒介法氏按蚊（Anopheles farauti，Laveran）成虫的实际效能，受到当地严苛热带环境的负面影响。为提升蚊虫的存活率，我们设计了一款下吸式风扇诱捕箱（Fan Box Trap, FBT），该诱捕器在箱体底部加装了带防护网的风扇，无需让蚊虫直接通过风扇区域。我们将FBT与需要蚊虫通过风扇的EVS、美国疾病控制与预防中心（Centers for Disease Control, CDC）诱蚊灯，以及无源被动式诱捕箱（Passive Box Trap, PBT）进行了对比测试。共开展4组对照实验，以比较各诱捕器对法氏按蚊（An. farauti）与库蚊类的采集数量及存活情况。尽管无统计学显著性差异，FBT的法氏按蚊采集量高于EVS诱捕器与PBT，但显著低于CDC诱蚊灯。不过FBT在CDC...[原文未完整] 昆士兰州北部考利海滩的蚊虫诱捕实验。 本数据集包含2015年于澳大利亚昆士兰州考利海滩训练区（Cowley Beach Training Area, CBTA，坐标：南纬17°41′35″，东经146°6′40″）开展的蚊虫诱捕器对比实验的原始Excel表格数据。 数据集涵盖按蚊与库蚊类的诱捕器采集对比数据，包含各诱捕实验的开展日期与采集量。本次实验涉及的诱捕器包括被动式诱捕箱（Passive Box Trap, PBT）、风扇诱捕箱（Fan Box Trap, FBT）以及脑炎病毒监测诱捕器（Encephalitis Virus Surveillance, EVS）。蚊虫采集数据分为以下3个Excel工作表存储： 1. 工作表1：蚊虫诱捕器采集对比实验。其中实验1为EVS诱捕器与PBT的对比，实验2为EVS诱捕器与FBT的对比。 2. 工作表2：多监测点下FBT、EVS与CDC诱蚊灯的诱捕采集对比数据。 3. 工作表3：蚊虫...